i have recieved letter from halifax sayin they except my claim for hardship rules they have offered me 196.00 but the charges are for 450.00 do i send a letter accepting as part settlement then carry on to court?

I would negotiate with them on the basis of how much your priority debt arrears are against the amount owing. I am not a fan of the Court route but others can advise you on that path if that is what you want to do.

why dont you think court?i was gonna send them lba,is this wrong?

why dont you think court?i was gonna send them lba,is this wrong?

CAG say take it to court, and my personal opinion only is that there are provisions within the FSA Waiver that specifically means you don't need to go that route. However, send a letter and negotiate for a higher settlement based on Priority debt arrears against the amount offered.

CAG say take it to court, and my personal opinion only is that there are provisions within the FSA Waiver that specifically means you don't need to go that route. However, send a letter and negotiate for a higher settlement based on Priority debt arrears against the amount offered.

This does not convey a correct impression of what we say.

By all means make hardship applications. If they make an offer of a refund then by all means accept it. In fact you have a duty to accept it as you have a duty to mitigate your loss.

However, you should certainly proceed to begin an action for any unpaid portion of the charges and the interest on those charges which is owed to you.

Finally, you will be better off not making a hardship claim but merely going ahead and suing for your money as then you will be able to include 8% statutory interest - whereas if the bank offers you a refund outside the court process, then you will lose this interest payment.

In fact the banks do not seem to have realised that the more money they can repay outside the court process, the better it will be for them. 8% is an enormous rate at the moment. The banks will make very substantial savings paying off refunds interest free rather than waiting for the amount owed by them to be loaded by a further 8% statutory interest.

However, it is not suprising that the banks are missing this opportunity because if anything, the banks have shown themselves not to be very good at .... banking!

This does not convey a correct impression of what we say.

The impression I get is that if you are not offered 100% of your claim then sue the bank, which I don't agree with on bank charges claims, financial hardship or otherwise.

By all means make hardship applications. If they make an offer of a refund then by all means accept it. In fact you have a duty to accept it as you have a duty to mitigate your loss.

I am a negotiate a higher amount if possible but agree to any interim payment.

However, you should certainly proceed to begin an action for any unpaid portion of the charges and the interest on those charges which is owed to you.

This bit I don't agree with and rather than discuss the finer points on Mo's thread I will quote the part of the waiver for you to decide if or whether we want to talk about interpretation(FSA Waiver, point 13.16 page 6-7)

Finally, you will be better off not making a hardship claim but merely going ahead and suing for your money as then you will be able to include 8% statutory interest - whereas if the bank offers you a refund outside the court process, then you will lose this interest payment.

Which I don't agree with you on (see above in brackets).

In fact the banks do not seem to have realised that the more money they can repay outside the court process, the better it will be for them. 8% is an enormous rate at the moment. The banks will make very substantial savings paying off refunds interest free rather than waiting for the amount owed by them to be loaded by a further 8% statutory interest.

I agree that 8% is a very good savings rate now.

However, it is not suprising that the banks are missing this opportunity because if anything, the banks have shown themselves not to be very good at .... banking!

I hope the above clarifies what I think. I don't understand at all what the last paragraph means in all honesty.

Dont you think you should get all your money back yourbank? I asked for all my charges back beccause of hardship. Shouldnt i have done that?

Dont you think you should get all your money back yourbank? I asked for all my charges back beccause of hardship. Shouldnt i have done that?

I need to make something clear. Under Financial Hardship the banks' do not have to payout even 1p of any claim(which should be for the total amount of charges and interest levied on the account). What I am saying is that when a bank offers for example, £75 when you are owed £3000 that I think you need to accept(cos it isn't a full and final settlement of the claim so the rest is still owed) but negotiate a higher amount based on the priority debt arrears. Furthermore, depending on how the claim is to be paid, I think there is room for further movement towards the FOS where the Bank decide to pay directly to an account where the end result still leave priority debts in arrears. For example, you are over your limit and they pay you a percentage equal to your priority debt arrears. However, the bank are in effect making themselves a priority debtor which they are not. Therefore, I think there is scope to argue that point, ie the payout was clearly biased towards the bank first and not the hardship that you are going through. Does that make sense?

I thought they had to pay up if you were hard up? My kids are growing fast and both need clothes and shoes. sometimes its a struggle to buy enough food. I need money just to live on but they just keep taking charges and its gettin harder and harder to cope.

I see what you mean yourbank but cant i ask for money so we can afford to live. Some weeks my sister helps me out with shopping if she can manage it but shes got growing kids too and cant really afford it. the bank just take take take and we get nothing some weeks. Im at my wits end trying to keep it all together. Im thinking of opening a new account and getting my money paid in there but will that mean halifax dont have to pay back my charges

Sorry to hijack the thread but i only got 1 reply on my thread.

you can open a new account, and if halifax keep taking your money in charges it would be a good idea to start over somewhere new.

halifax will still have to repay your charges when the test case is over(if it goes our way which it should) whether your account is in use or not.

Have you completed an income and expenditure sheet ?

Do you know why you are continuing to incur charges ?

On a low income, especially if it is just benefits, then it may be an idea to switch to paying bills over the counter or via paypoint, stop the risk of charges being incurred through direct debit/debit card payments.

If you have a look at the letter I have posted in this forum (FSA dated 19th march) it might give you some more ammunition to throw at the bank.